Clarke is an expert in photo editing and retouching, and the friends wanted his opinion on the images. He noticed a few things right away. Contradiction.
What happened to Princess Charlotte's hand, which appears to be distorted by the cuff of her sleeve? Why were her mother's fingers so fuzzy against the crisp knit of Prince Louis' sweater? Was there a professional catchlight shining in the family's eyes as seen in the photo allegedly taken by Prince William? The photo written by Mr. Clark is Social media post that went viralwhich included “a number of readily visible…operations.”
He added: “What were they thinking?”
Within hours, the major news agencies that had circulated the photos of the palace handouts (including Getty Images, Agence France-Presse, and Associated Press) were shutting down their customers over concerns that the images had been altered in violation of the law. asked them to stop using the photo. their ethical standards; And on Monday, Duchess Kate apologized: “Like many amateur photographers,” she explained in her official statement, she “experimented.”[ed] In editing. ”
The incident highlighted the growing conflict between the two media standards. On the other hand, expectations of celebrity perfection are increasing. A smooth face and cellulite-free thighs are best achieved with a little photoshopping. Meanwhile, certain ideals of journalistic transparency and honesty are increasingly under attack as artificial intelligence deepfakes and cries of “fake news” invade culture.
And Kensington Palace's clumsy crisis PR campaign to deal with growing anxiety about Duchess Kate (who was last seen in public on Christmas Day) and outlandish conspiracy theories has only made the situation worse. Questions arose as to whether this was the case.
So again: “What were they thinking?'' agrees royal biographer Sally Bedell-Smith. “If, as we speculate, the photos were heavily manipulated, that would create a fairly large reliability problem.”
However, Clark I don't see any conspiracy (simply “incompetent”), and thinks the credibility issue is misplaced.why shouldn't Does the royal family want to retouch images? “We all want pictures of our kids smiling.”
The question, he said, is whether the media was too quick to tell the public, or in other words, tried too hard to present a pretty picture as news.
Journalism ethics requires that images published in news outlets depict reality without post-production operations such as Photoshop or other editing software. Editors must also ensure the authenticity of photos taken under uncertain circumstances. For example, images from the Ukraine war are being analyzed pixel by pixel for evidence of potential misinformation.
And calling out images created by artificial intelligence without proper labeling has become a virtual cottage industry in the media world.
But in the VIP realm of the royal family, photoshopping is not just accepted, it's expected.
Fashion magazines and celebrity-focused publications are not held to the same standards as reporting agencies when it comes to photography, often retouching cover shoots and profile subjects to sell aspirational lifestyles. doing.
In 1989, TV Guide transplanted Oprah Winfrey's head onto actress Ann-Margret's slimmer frame. Complex Magazine slimmed Kim Kardashian's waist and hips in a 2009 image.
“I smoothed out the lines here and shaved the lines on my neck,” Lena Dunham told Grantland's Bill Simmons, recalling their 2014 cover shoot, but also said, “I completely smoothed out the lines here and shaved the lines on my neck,” Vogue magazine said. He added that he felt respected. (She later said that when Jezebel published the unretouched image, she “felt disgusted.”)
Some celebrities accused the magazine of over-editing their photos. In 2003, Kate Winslet told the BBC that her feet had “reduced in size by about a third” for a cover shoot for British GQ.
But today, our phones and computers have made similar technology available to the average Facebook user looking for a better-looking profile shot. This is the very human misdemeanor the princess has confessed to, and one palace insider chalks it up to as an “innocent, naive mistake” that the public will quickly forgive.
“She went for it,” said Dickie Arbiter, Queen Elizabeth II's former press secretary. “It was more than a photo agency would have done.” …That was a genuine mistake perpetuated by a photo agency that didn’t check. They released the photo only to kill him a few hours later. ”
The Associated Press published a lengthy explanation of its “photo erasure” order, which prohibits alteration or digital manipulation of images beyond minor photo editing such as cropping or color adjustment, and that the original He said that anything that changes the scene is prohibited.
“Changes in density, contrast, color, or saturation levels that significantly alter the original scene are unacceptable,” the Associated Press said. “The background must not be erased by digitally blurring, burning in, or aggressively adjusting the tone.” The Associated Press also does not allow for the removal of “red eye.”
Similarly, Reuters said its “Journalism Handbook” only allows limited use of Photoshop. “Only a fraction of its potential is used to format photos, crop and resize them, and balance tones and colors,” the news agency said.
Susan Keith, a professor of journalism and media studies at Rutgers University, praised these standards.
“In this moment when we are exposed to disinformation and misinformation, I understand the urge to make sure the public knows what they are seeing,” she said. “That's the core of what news agencies do.”
Keith added that by removing photos of the royal family from circulation, the news organization sent an important message to Kensington Palace about its commitment to transparency and accuracy.
The Associated Press rarely removes photos, but the organization does not hesitate when the authenticity of an image is called into question. In 2011, the photo was invalidated when editors learned that the photographer had altered the image to cover up his shadow. In a memo to staff, cinematographer Santiago Lyon called the incident “deliberate and misleading,” Poynter said.
In an even more egregious example, a 2017 investigation by BBC Brazil found that a purported battlefield photographer named “Eduardo Martins” (which turned out to be a fake name) had been stealing images from conflicts in Iraq, Syria and Gaza for years. It was revealed that the information had been manipulated and falsified. to established media organizations around the world. Before news of the scam broke, the photos were published in the Wall Street Journal, Vice, the BBC and more, and Martins had amassed more than 100,000 followers on Instagram and a reputation in the international photojournalism community. It was gaining popularity.
After closely analyzing the fake photos, São Paulo photographer Ignacio Aronovic discovered that Martins had reversed some of the stolen images to make them harder to track online, The Guardian reported. . Another image showed Martins holding a camera that appeared to have lost its shutter button. In a statement to the Guardian, Getty Images said it had removed all photos credited to Martins.
But with much of the journalism industry facing deep budget cuts, many news organizations no longer have the resources or staffing to catch any violations, Keith said.
“It's probably a good thing there are a lot of internet sleuths out there doing this work themselves,” she added.
Still, this was not a war zone. It was a picture of some children and their mother. So the hoax was both ridiculous and kind of sympathetic to anyone who's ever tried to make three kids sit still and laugh at the same time.
The standard of celebrity perfection is even higher for the royal family, who are expected to not only look glamorous, but project all the aspirations and ideals of the entire country.
The princess famously appeared flawless for a hospital photo shoot with Prince George, the next heir to the throne, just hours after giving birth. There's no doubt that a photo of Duchess Kate not-so-pretty after her abdominal surgery this winter would have sparked as much speculation and chatter as no image of her at all. .
“Having to meet that unrealistic standard is probably the biggest impact on her,” Bedell-Smith said. “This is a moment for them to reconsider how they portray themselves in a world that is becoming so disrupted by images.”
Duchess Kate's father-in-law also appears to be taking steps in that direction. King Charles III has largely stayed away from public life as he is undergoing treatment for cancer, but his Instagram account is full of images of him having Zoom chats with foreign leaders and greeting ambassadors behind closed doors. are shared. In the video montage, he is seen reading a letter that says “Get well”.
Bedell-Smith said Kensington Palace could have done more to reassure the public about Kate's health by releasing original, unedited photos of the princess and her children. Ta.
“It’s a good time to understand that you don’t have to be perfect,” she said. “It's okay if the image looks a little beat up around the edges, as we all do.”
Praveena Somasundaram contributed to this report.